• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

Cleon said:
I challenge you to explain why it's a vote for Trump and not a vote for Hillary.
Click to expand...

I would wager an extremely small number of Stein's votes come from the Trump camp.

The presumption is, Trump it the antithesis to Stein while Clinton is at least left of that.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
A vote for Stein is a de facto vote for Trump. I challenge anybody to disprove that.
Click to expand...

There are several things wrong with this analysis. First, your assumption is that anybody who votes for Stein would vote for Hillary otherwise.

Second, many voters live in non-battleground states. A vote for Stein in many states (California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama, for example) will not increase Trump's chances of winning the national election by one iota.

Third, even if we assume that most Stein voters are torn between Jill and Hill, votes on the wings always count for half those of votes in the center. Think about it for a second; if Stein costs Hillary a leftist vote, that's net -1 for Hillary. On the other hand if Trump gets a Hillary-leaning moderate, that's a net -2 for Hillary--one vote that she doesn't get plus one vote that Trump gets.

Fourth, you should say that a vote for Stein is a vote for Hitler, to be consistent with your prior Godwin-worthy remarks.
 
Suddenly said:
This is pretty common in third party world. The key is that nobody knows who she is to a significant degree so she enjoys an illusion of purity. Usually when third party candidates are examined closely, the results are pretty grim. If Stein were to be examined to the same extent that Hillary has been examined, I'd bet that Stein would come off at least as bad as Hillary. Jill's only saving grace, if you call it that, is that she has no experience in government.
Click to expand...

Is she this years Michael Badnarik? :)
 
Herein is the problem Sander's supporters created for themselves. Their rhetoric was indistinguishable from the Republican Rhetoric. Those who were undecided between them didn't even pay attention. They were looking for reasons to support one or the other. Sanders supporters failed to make a case for their man, choosing instead to get cast aside with the Republican nonsense.
 
The whole "is it a crime or not" has been moved to AAH. Whilst comparisons between candidates are well on topic, delving too far into another candidate is off topic for this thread, and there's probably at least one other thread discussing them.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There's a fallacy here, false dichotomy I believe. I do not need to give you evidence of something for which I did not claim.

I said her understanding of the vaccine recommendation process was seriously flawed. Her beliefs about vaccines border on conspiracy theory level. If you are going to claim the FDA is owned by big pharma, you need more than a theory to back that up.
Click to expand...

You claimed she was employing "bad science"
Where is you evidence of that? How do any of your accusations here demonstrate "bad science"??
And while you're at it, perhaps you can demonstrate how religious beliefs constitute "good science"--since apparently you feel her agnosticism is irrelevant.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There's a fallacy here, false dichotomy I believe. I do not need to give you evidence of something for which I did not claim.

I said her understanding of the vaccine recommendation process was seriously flawed. Her beliefs about vaccines border on conspiracy theory level. If you are going to claim the FDA is owned by big pharma, you need more than a theory to back that up.
Click to expand...

And allow me one more question, very to-the-point.

Say you have two candidates, one who believes that vaccines cause autism (Stein doesn't, but for the sake of this hypothetical...)
And another believes in an all-powerful being that looks like Charles Heston and allows people like Skeptic Ginger to burn in damnation while rewarding mass murderers with eternal glory--
based on those facts alone--who do you think is being more "unscientific"?
Who would you prefer as you're POTUS??
I can't wait for your response... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Maya22 said:
If a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, would a vote for Johnson be a vote for Clinton?
Click to expand...

So the argument goes...
which is why we should come into the 21st Century and institute ranked voting, just as Stein recommends.
 
Maya22 said:
If a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, would a vote for Johnson be a vote for Clinton?
Click to expand...
Apparently you did not read the link. However, yes, if one is voting Libertarian because Trump isn't conservative enough, one is essentially voting for Clinton.
 
stanfr said:
So the argument goes...
which is why we should come into the 21st Century and institute ranked voting, just as Stein recommends.
Click to expand...
How do you envision this working out differently than the current system with the person with the most votes winning?
 
wareyin said:
Apparently you did not read the link. However, yes, if one is voting Libertarian because Trump isn't conservative enough, one is essentially voting for Clinton.
Click to expand...


Never mind me... I'm just full of...... Sarcasm.
 
stanfr said:
And allow me one more question, very to-the-point.

Say you have two candidates, one who believes that vaccines cause autism (Stein doesn't, but for the sake of this hypothetical...)
And another believes in an all-powerful being that looks like Charles Heston and allows people like Skeptic Ginger to burn in damnation while rewarding mass murderers with eternal glory--
based on those facts alone--who do you think is being more "unscientific"?
Who would you prefer as you're POTUS??
I can't wait for your response... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What on earth is this about?
 
stanfr said:
Im in the same position, cept im leaning Green. I don't have the link handy, but supposedly Stein matches Bernie on 99% of issues, whereas with Hillary it is 91%
Click to expand...

There is more to a politician than stated positions. Her complete lack of government experience does bother me. I was more in favor of Bernie than Hillary. However I am not 100% matched to either. From what I am seeing Jill is even more supportive of positions I disliked in Bernie. So I am not seeing much to make me consider her at this time.

portlandatheist said:
She's an economic nationalist/protectionist/mercantilist just like Sanders and Trump.
Click to expand...

The general rhetoric of economic protectionism is one of the big aspects of Bernie I disliked. I believe our trade agreements can be better for both sides, but generally speaking I think free trade is of benefit to everyone. I am in favor of tweaking, improving our trade deals rather than abandoning them.
 
wareyin said:
How do you envision this working out differently than the current system with the person with the most votes winning?
Click to expand...

It would make a huge difference! Take the Republican primaries--if ranked voting had been in effect, all the people who split their votes between Cruz, Rubio etc but who did not like Trump--all of those votes would have transferred to the 2d place candidate (behind Trump)--so Trump very well could have lost.
 
stanfr said:
It would make a huge difference! Take the Republican primaries--if ranked voting had been in effect, all the people who split their votes between Cruz, Rubio etc but who did not like Trump--all of those votes would have transferred to the 2d place candidate (behind Trump)--so Trump very well could have lost.
Click to expand...
So the person who gets the most votes wins, and Stein's system only changes who comes in 2nd place? That seems useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom